If Immigration Reform Stalls, Federal Courts Could Have a Say

Democrats might tweak immigration reform to make Republican opposition inevitable and hit them in 2014 for being obstructionist. This could hurt Dreamers by giving courts enough time to void Obama's Executive Order

When President Obama and Democrats in Congress say they would like to pass a comprehensive immigration-reform bill this year, it’s entirely possible that they mean exactly what they say. But in Washington, where taking a statement at face value is the mark of a rube, there’s speculation that, deep down, the Democrats would rather “save the issue” — tweak the process in some way that would make Republican opposition inevitable, then use the failure of reform as a weapon in 2014.

That suspicion spiked over the weekend when details of a White House immigration proposal lit up the news sites in time to be squabbled over on the Sunday-morning talk shows. The Administration strongly denied it was tossing a wrench into delicate congressional negotiations, but remember what we just said about taking statements at face value. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, a key figure on immigration policy, smelled a rat: “Does the President really want a result?” he asked on Meet the Press. “Or does he want another cudgel so he can beat up Republicans to get an advantage in the next election?”

So are Democrats secretly maneuvering to save the issue of immigration? Are Republicans cynically accusing the Democrats of trying to save the issue as a way of shifting blame should reform fail? “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” the writer Walter Scott famously wrote, “when first we practice to deceive.”

Of course, the only way to prove conclusively that an issue is not being saved is to reach a compromise and pass a bill. And members of Congress who are participating in bipartisan talks on immigration say they are making progress and a real solution remains possible. But if the issue is saved for the next election, don’t be surprised if the federal courts get involved. A lawsuit pending in Fort Worth asks a U.S. district judge to render President Obama’s 2012 Executive Order on immigration null and void.

The order, circulated by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, was designed to implement large parts of the Dream Act — despite the fact that Congress never passed the act. Immigrants landing in the U.S. illegally as children would not be deported as long as they met certain virtuous benchmarks: going to school, serving in the military, staying out of jail and so on. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were instructed not to initiate legal proceedings against so-called Dreamers. In the view of 10 of the agents, this amounts to ordering them to break the law. Legislation passed in 1996 can be read as requiring agents to open formal proceedings against immigrants who can’t prove their lawful status.

“The directive commands ICE officers to violate federal law,” says the complaint, which was written by attorneys Kris Kobach of Kansas and Michael P. Jung of Texas, a formidable and conservative pair. The order also “commands ICE officers to violate their oaths to uphold and support federal law … unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress … and violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law.”

The government tried scoffing at the lawsuit — which has been joined by the State of Mississippi and its governor, Phil Bryant. (Failure to enforce the law will cost the state millions in benefits for the Dreamers, the state maintains.) But U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled this month that the agents have standing to sue and set a hearing on the complaint for early April. There, the Administration’s lawyers are likely to argue that a department operating with limited resources to address a vast problem must have freedom to set priorities. And that the President is justified in deciding that otherwise law-abiding immigrants, who did not choose to enter the country as children, should not be an enforcement priority.

For the judge to side with the agents would “pose a safety risk by diverting much needed resources from the removal of aliens who are serious criminals, repeat offenders or who otherwise pose national security risks,” the government warns.

It’s all moot if Congress passes a new immigration act that deals with the Dreamers. ICE agents will, presumably, be instructed to enforce the provisions of the reformed law, and the Executive Order of 2012 will be packed off to the National Archives. Issue resolved — if such a thing is still possible in Washington.

Honestly, how would passing or not passing an immigration reform make white people's lives better? how would it make your life better to vote for it or against it? how would it make you a better person? let the people concern with it deal with the problem!

Whatever happens with this immigration reform, don't blame other people for your personal failures! just find out what your mistakes are and fix things. If you think so called "White Countries" (which I honestly didn't know there was such thing as a strictly "white country") are being flooded by non-white people and this is a form of genocide, first of all, learn the meaning of the word GENOCIDE.

Now, if you argue that a high testosteron mestizo produces 20 babies in a lifetime and you complain about it, it is not really their fault that you do not have the same reproduction habilities.

While you morons are complaining about immigration as a race issue, the Chinese are laughing at us. Now, more than ever, we need immigration to our country. Not because we need workers, but because we need consumers. We live in a consumer driven economy. Our country is larger than China in terms of geographical space, yet we choose to whine and moan about how "there isn't any room." HA, what a joke. We have PLENTY of ROOM. We need consumer spending power to outpace countries like China who is transitioning from a saving economy to a consumer driven economy, which is why their GDP has been outpacing many countries ( Japan most recently, and the U.S in another 10 years ) . WAKE UP PEOPLE! I rather have new immigrants ( AKA CONSUMERS, NEW MONEY, SPending Power ETc. ) in my country rather than dumb rednecks that have no idea how our Economic system works. Yes, some of these people will send money back home, but these same people also need to eat, sleep, and buy clothes, and that will bring a boost in our economy both short and long term.

Notably, however, any proposed Immigration "reform" that contravenes the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (e.g., by treating similarly situated persons differently under the law) will likewise be held void ab initio in Federal court. Accordingly, the GOP's naked attempts to push for "reform" that is unconstitutional on its face tends to prove the GOP is using (yet another) "wedge issue" as a pretext to "divide and conquer" with an eye towards a 2014 Rubio ticket. It seems that the GOP's adherence to a "strict construction" of the BIll of Rights here at home is as illusory as its acknowledgment that other people are entitled to self-determination abroad.

The Founding Fathers' dispassionate Social Contract cannot be impugned so easily.

Turning the US into Mexico is sure to happen if the high Testosterone
Mestizo`s are free to party on Uncle Sam’s dime. One male Mestizo produces 20
babies in his lifetime, in a few decades Chili and Beans will become the #1
food stamp purchase.

In such households with a blend of illegal aliens(often
parents) and citizens (usually kids); only the citizens are technically entitled
for the benefits of the program, but if groceries purchased by Food Stamps are
on the dining room table, the common-sense conjecture is that all members of
the family will profit from it. So yes, all else being equivalent, a low-income
household with one or more illegal aliens in it, is more likely to get Food
Stamps than a household with similar income with all members being legally
present. In another, correlated situations families are qualified, both have
equal incomes, but the one with an illegal alien member seems to get a larger
allotment.

Then how can that be? The Food Stamp program (now
called SNAP, for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is, fittingly,
income-tested; if the household has too much income, nobody in it gets any Food
Stamps. There is a fine distinction, of course, but if the family circle of
four's gross income is less than $29,064, for example, it is, all else being
equal, eligible for Food Stamps. If the household size is smaller, the cut-off
is lower, and vice-versa. (The calculation of exact the size of the monthly
allotment is too complex to be discussed here.)

But then how does the U.S. Department of Agriculture
define "income" in these surroundings?

Ah! The rule in 46 of the 50 states is that if one
of the members is illegally present in a household of four, for instance, then
the gross income of the household is reduced by a fourth for Food Stamp
eligibility purposes. So, if there are two households with actual gross incomes
of, say, $36,000 a year, each with four members, and one consists of nothing
but legal residents, and one has one illegal plus three legal immigrants, this
is how the eligibility would work out:

For four
legal immigrants, with income of $36,000 annually – NOT eligible for Food
Stamps.

Three legal
immigrants plus one illegal alien with household "income" calculated
at $27,000 a year – HALLELUIAH! – Eligible for Food Stamps. In addition to the
question of eligibility vs. non-eligibility for Food Stamps of these mixed
households, there is the question of the size of the monthly grant. According
to an article in The Kansas Reporter the matter is before the Kansas Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), and one of its executives was
quoted as saying:

As a result an ineligible household of four, on
average, could bring in $908 more in income and qualify for the same food stamp
benefits, Michelle Schroeder, SRS director of public policy told House
Appropriations Committee members.

I'm a 22 year old dreamer with many stories to tell. I have always been told that I should write a book yet I think everyone should share their stories. I have created a blog where I choose a topic, share my story and feelings and would like other to do the same. I am attempting to get the truth out in the open about us: undocumented immigrants.

The penalty for employers of illegal aliens should be mandatory sentences of $15,000 fines per illegal worker and 2 years in jail without parole per illegal worker. That and deportation of the illegal workers would put an immediate end to the problem.

WE HAVE AS MUCH POWER AS THE SPECIAL
INTEREST LOBBYISTS, MORE SO IF WE COME TOGETHER AND SHOUT THE LOUDEST. NO
REWARDS FOR PEOPLE WHO BREAK OUR LAWS, THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

Your hard earned taxes are being taken from you—the American
people to pander to the illiterate, illegal aliens who are still coming here
with the compliments of the morons in Washington. Not just across a poorly supported border, but
masquerading as tourists as well? You are being forced by an out-of-touch court
judicial system to disburse for all the costs of illegal aliens and their
children smuggled here through a mostly poor structure called the Fence and not
the previous Presidents two fences that should stretch from Brownville, Texas to
the coastal edge of California. Some members purposely underfunded the real
2006 Secure Fence Act, because employers who hire illegal aliens didn’t like
it. It cut their corporate profits. In other words it was too good a structure
that made it more difficult for criminal illegal aliens to negotiate? A
structure similar in comparison to the State of Israel towering barrier to keep
murdering insurgence out. What our Congress has to do now is to pass “The Legal
Workforce Act”, combined with the provision of mandatory E-Verify to oust
illegal workers from the 23 million American jobs.

Also pass the Birthright Citizenship Bill” that
stops smuggled children becoming instant citizens, thus allowing the parent’s
of “Foothold Babies” to live of the proceeds of the new citizen entitlements.
This has become a lucrative business in the U.S., to the financial detriment of
the aggrieved taxpayer. This last above mentioned law leads to in due course Family
Chain Migration sponsorship and yet even more Dream Acts that is leading to
huge tax hikes. When you pay Uncle Sam in April, you are not only paying for
all the agencies of the government, federal, state and municipal revenues, but
food stamps for illegal aliens just passed by the Liberal administrations, Medicaid
and health care treatment for free, and the bulk of the money going to the
children of illegal aliens education. This policy has influenced every American
citizen/legal resident of any skin color, religious affiliation or politic
party line for decades.

Guest workers must be given serious consideration as
long as the farming industry pays for everything, not the taxpayer. Stem tech
and professional jobs must only go to the highest skilled people who will not
end up on the entitlement line. I million a year of all categories is enough,
but most immigrant visas should go to the talented people and all others must
be dealt with severely who break our laws.

With little or no hesitation by both political
parties, except for the overall majority of the TEA PARTY we are going to see
this year some form of Amnesty. This is the promise of King Obama and the
Imperial Court. American citizens have no other course of action but to petition
your Congressman and Senate representatives. This country is going to the dogs
under administration that is denying the rights of citizens of their U.S.
Constitutional rights. To petition your people in Washington for free, go to
NumbersUSA

We still have a chance to make ourselves known to that
Gang of 8 politicians, as there is access to free faxes at NumbersUSA, to
petition Washington. YOU CAN ALSO PHONE YOUR disreputable POLITICIANS THROUGH
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PHONE SWITCHBOARD AT (202) 224-3121.The Immigration debates are going on now and
we should demand no more Paths to Citizenship; that illegal aliens should
return to their home country and go through the rigorous process that honest
immigrants must take. EVERY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO PETITION HIS STATE OR
FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ESSENTIALLY OFFER HIS GRIEVANCES ABOUT ANYTHING,
INCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Extra by Stephen Frank of 02/18/2013
of California Report of News and Views. Here you will find some of the most
significant information on fraud and waste in California. In addition American
Patrol also digs up the dirt, plus Judicial Watch interprets the laws being
bypassed by President Obama’s Liberal thought police and what the
Liberal-Democrats-Socialists Political Correctness mandatory standards.

I lost all respect for President Obama last June when he have millions of illegal aliens these work visas at a time of record unemployment. I hope that Immigration Reform does not happen and the President finds out that what he did was illegal. No US President should be allowed to pick and choose which laws he enforces.

President Barack Obama needs to really do something fast. for the ones that are here ONLY here inside the USA. people like my husband came here when he was 14yrs old and has been working at the same company ever since 1994-NOW he is know going to be 31yrs old and he still there he gets pay 10.50 after so many years... it is a farm work and it is a hard job but he needs to support me and our three children. we don't ask for no DHS assistant at all. like him there are a lot more and they are the only ones that deserved to get help by getting legalized and be able to get benifits and be LEGAL in the USA. and have the opportunity to go to MEXICO and see his FAmily. after so many years he can't go becasue first are his children and plus he will not leaves us here. on our own.

Objectively, our nation has no need for "more immigrants", but rather,
employers have a subjective need to avoid competing for available legal
workers.

Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crumbling
infrastructure, diminishing resources and opportunities, crime,
pollution, lack of affordable housing, vanishing farm land and green
space, water and energy shortages, overcrowded schools, hospitals and
jails, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the marginalization of
American workers, students, taxpayers and voters, the balkanization of
our communities, indeed, the overall decline in quality of life, are all
the result of unconstrained immigration and lax enforcement. There are
no problems confronting America's citizens that would not immediately
and measurably improve by securing our borders and enforcing our
existing immi...gration
laws. It's dangerously misguided to suggest that there is a need for
more immigrants, particularly when the same people asserting this need
are the same people demanding that we diminish our carbon foot print and
decrying the fact that many states are in the midst of a decade long
drought. Employers, politicians, bureaucrats all cite a need for open
borders for purely self serving reasons, just as the illegals themselves
insist that they must be given citizenship, and none of these
assertions have any merit. Those employers who refuse to "compete for
legal workers" or who hate competing for American workers who seek to
live the accepted American lifestyle in our communities, will continue
to insist that an alternate source of low cost easily manipulated
workers be provided at the expense of America's taxpayers. Politicians
will insist on the same as this likewise provides them a limitless
number of easily manipulated potential "Democratic voters" that will
eliminate these politicians ever again having to worry about
constitutional issues or taxpayer burdens, or that pesky conservative
majority.

Virtually every industrialized nation, China,
Mexico, Great Britain, the European Union, Asia, the Middle East, have
all adopted zero tolerance policies for illegal aliens entering and
already operating within their countries. These same nations have
likewise adopted practices and policies aimed at curtailing legal
immigration, limiting such to only that which is prudent, demonstrably
necessary, readily assimilated, and above all other concerns, limited
only to that which will not compete against their native populations for
resources and opportunities, and that will not burden their taxpayers.
It's dangerously delusional for anyone to suggest that the United States
not do likewise.

Regardless of how the Obama Administration,
the Media, the Cheap Labor interests, or the self serving illegal aliens
themselves try to spin the narrative on illegal immigration, there
remains one inescapable fact that undermines all their pro-illegal
assertions. That fact is that "too many people competing for the same
limited resources and opportunities is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE sane,
sustainable social, economic or environmental policy. Our founders
recognized the value of establishing and enforcing borders. For decades
American's have fought and died and funded the spread of democracy to
other nations. Giving away citizenship to those who violate our borders
and break our laws comes as a slap in the face to the sacrifices we've
made to help spread democracy to these other nations. Indeed, I would
argue that all those immigrants who are so lazy, cowardly, greedy or
self interested that they prefer to violate our laws (take the easy way
out), rather than do the hard work of building a democracy, ending
political corruption and advancing social justice in their own
countries, are hardly the sort of immigrants our immigration laws should
encourage to come here, nor our enforcement practices tolerate to stay!
What if instead of pledging their lives, their fortunes, their sacred
honor to build this nation, our founding fathers had instead opted to
"slip across another countries border and take advantage of their
taxpayers"? This is little different than those who would insist that
illegal aliens be guaranteed a free and easy ride for breaking our laws,
rather than our help in straightening out the corrupt mess they've made
of their own governments and countries.

What's it going to take for you media types to stop taking McCain seriously?

> ...smelled a rat

"A skunk smells its own scent first."

> Of course, the only way to prove conclusively that an issue is not being saved is to reach a compromise and pass a bill.

Like I said last week, immigration reform is a win-win issue for the Democrats; either they get a bill passed on largely their own terms or the GOPers play petty obstructionists and further alienate Hispanic and Latino voters.

> Are Republicans cynically accusing the Democrats of trying to save the issue as a way of shifting blame should reform fail?

That, or an attempt to put pressure on the Dems for concessions when they are negotiating from a very weak position. Much easier to believe in conspiracy theories than it is to face the reality of a situation.

> A lawsuit pending in Fort Worth, Texas...

Link to a news story or the actual lawsuit, please. I'd be interested in seeing who's pushing this.

"All three groups are well known — you have probably come across their
leaders denouncing immigration “amnesty” in news articles and on TV.
The groups have the ear of conservative politicians all over the
country, and their efforts have inspired many of the hard-line federal,
state and local initiatives cracking down on immigrants and immigration.
Numbers USA even took credit for a storm of blast faxes and phone calls
to Congress that helped to kill a major immigration bill in 2007.

What is less well known, the report says, is what the groups have in
common: histories connecting them to a retired Michigan eye doctor with a
long-held interest in eugenics, racial quotas, and white nationalism."

So, finally, we have what's really driving this lawsuit; looking at what's posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center's site, we have a breakdown of "The Nativist Lobby:"

FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton,
the 'puppeteer' of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist
roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades
been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with
leading white supremacists, promoted anti-Semitic ideas, and associated
closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a
leading newspaper as a 'neo-Nazi organization.' He has made a series of
racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding
whites."

"A retired Michigan ophthalmologist, John Tanton spent decades at the
heart of the white nationalist movement. His racist views were first
exposed in 1988 when a series of private memos
he wrote for principals at the Federation for American Immigration
Reform (FAIR) were leaked to the press. The memos were filled with
racist statements and warned about a coming 'Latin onslaught.'"

and when Tanton became an embarrassment because of his racist views, who took over and runs the place now. Of course, now that a politician espousing racist views openly is considered to be a form of political suicide, that 'Nativist Lobby' is taking a different tack:

"Tanton's correspondence shows that he and Beck regularly came up with
program ideas together, with Tanton usually being the one to pitch them
to U.S. Inc. donors. One of the ideas that was most developed by the
pair was what they called 'Recruiting Republicans,' a project Tanton
described in 2001 as 'an idea that can actually move the battle lines
... in our favor.' Tanton plugged the idea hard with major U.S. Inc.
donors. 'The goal is to educate these members about the political
consequences of high-level immigration, to recruit at least some
legislators to the immigration caucus in the House and to get them to
act and vote accordingly,' he wrote to the late Cordelia Scaife May's
foundation. (Indeed, the hard-line House Immigration Reform Caucus,
which had just 10 members before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, has grown
to 112 members today, almost all of them Republicans.)

Tanton
wrote another 2001 letter to Fred Stanback, a major funder of Beck's
U.S. Inc. work. 'The goal is to change Republicans' perception of
immigration so that when they encounter the word 'immigrant,' their
reaction is 'Democrat.'"

@DaveFrancis I really do not know where you are getting all these "want to be statistics" but I can assure you that if an undocumented immigrant walks into social services, he/she will not receive any help. And if I was to accept your argument as valid, ask yourself this: "If we legalize 'deserving' immigrants, then these would not lower the income, also these people would now be able to get better jobs have higher incomes, therefore, contribute more." You are still ignoring that fact that most immigrants do pay taxes, and do contribute to society with little return. I cannot speak for all immigrants, but you can't generalize the situation of a handful to the situation of all undocumented immigrants. For example: what would you do with an undocumented immigrant who owns his own business and employs 10 American citizens? The same who has paid taxes since day one and has put two daughters through college? No, criminal record. Think about it, before you generalize to a bigger sample.

Please drop the caps lock. It makes posts harder to read and easier to bypass. Further, it transmits the idea you're shouting and in a reasoned debate, that will never convince anyone. Shouting exists not to convince but to intimidate and this is the Internet. You can't intimidate people unless they think there's an actual risk to them and the worst you can do is write a letter.

Anyways, here's the flaw with your argument:

-Do you believe that the Israelis should be deported from Israel?

-Do you believe the Turks should be deported from former Armenia?

-Do you believe that the Arabs should be deported from Northern Africa?

-Do you believe the Saxons should be deported from Britain?

We can go further and further and further back until we argue that humans never should've left the golden horseshoe where we first evolved or never left the ocean billions of years ago, but at some point you have to let history go. Yes, the Native Americans were invaded and conquered by European powers. Yes, it was a tragedy. But history is filled with story after story after story after story of that happening and if we spent the rest of our life trying to right the wrongs of past generations and only end up with a lot of dead and no closer to actually solving the problem. I'd rather spend the time trying to solve the current problems.

@DaveFrancis Before you say anything do your research! Undocumented immigrants DO NOT have rights to food stamps or medicaid or any governmental help, yet most still pay taxes for you and all other documented Americans to use. I don't agree on an eyes closed amnesty but with much consideration background checks, fees etc. these people deserve a chance.

America was founded on slavery and needs something akin to slavery to continue to prosper and or survive. The fact is, illegal aliens in this country have replaced the slaves that were used by many businesses and people in the 1800's. If you have doubts of that fact, simply ask yourself if you would ever consider employment picking produce and or fruit for what farmers are willing to pay people to do so?

This goes back to the problems I have with the trolls calling everybody nazis: an act is evil because it's evil, not because it is supported by someone we commonly associated with being evil. Am I surprised that the person pushing against the Dream Act is nativist? Not at all. But that doesn't mean we can or should summarily dismiss him because he's nativist. The arguments against Obama's Executive Order are based upon legal positions and their merit should be judged on the legal reality. Do I think it was a good thing for Obama to issue that Executive Order? Absolutely. But America is still a nation where the rule of law applies even if we disagree with the grounds the law was written on.

a) It's ironic that any white person residing in North America considers themselves a 'native' in the first place. Just had to get that out there.

b) Motivation. I consider it noteworthy that an organization with historical ties to white nationalist groups is funding a lawsuit that challenges the legality of an executive order that prioritizes the enforcement of immigration law.

c) It's just bad optics for a party that wants to appear appealing to Hispanic voters.

> This goes back to the problems I have with the trolls calling everybody nazi...

Just to be clear, some of the characters in this story could legitimately be Nazis, so I feel I don't pass the 'unfounded hyperbole' test.

But let's put the whole Nazi thing to the sidefor a moment.

> ...an act is evil because it's evil, not because it is supported by someone we commonly associated with being evil.

If evil person A uses means N* to produce bad outcome X, then we consider the whole thing to be 'evil,' right?

However, if evil person A uses means O* to produce bad outcome X, then we consider the whole thing to be...what? Meritorious? A philosophical grey area?

(*N = "no amnesty for illegal Hispanics because they'll outbreed whites" where O = "executive branch doesn't have right to grant de facto amnesty to undocumented Americans by sidestepping law")

Now let's bring our Nazis back in and get absurd. Using the above two sentences, let's do a little Mad Libs**.

A The Nazis rounded up Jews and sent them to prison camp N gas chambers as part of X the Final Solution, and we consider that act to be 'evil.'

A The Nazis passed laws O prohibiting Jewish families from procreating as part of X the Final Solution, and we would consider that act to be...what?

One more Nazi reference, then I get to wash my hands of them for now:

"Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal." - Sen. Robert C. Byrd

Do bad people creating bad outcomes through legal means make it all better?

> ...that doesn't mean we can or should summarily dismiss him because he's nativist.

No, but it helps us to make those all-important value judgments. Are you going to be more or less skeptical of a lawsuit challenging the Obama's administration's executive order prioritizing immigration enforcement if you know that it's being backed by a 'nativist' org with historical links to white nationalist groups?

You are a defeated and conquered people. Obsolete and barley any value to our modern Society. Casinos we don't need. Useless prattling about Europeans stealing your land.... Done. Now please deal me another hand or refresh my drink....

BTW: I took a look at that page and while there are a lot of things missing and I got sick of trying to read through all of Bush's items on there, I am not seeing any where a President reprioritized enforcement mechanisms. Mind you, I'm having an impossible time figuring out which one is the Dream one

"What concern is that of yours? "You don't need to find out" what my motivations are, "so what does it matter?" "

"Not for you to tell me what I should or should not be concerned with. Particularly in a blog. "

Sure, and normally I wouldn't give a hoot. But let's go to the original post that started this all. Ignoring the very poorly considered first four paragraphs, the author presents the uncontestable facts of the case. On that end, he just lays out the two sides - very factual. You then go and throw together an in-depth research on the matter and post a huge list of links and other items.... and the summarize it with "You're welcome, David".

You want to know it, fine. I didn't argue for blinding yourself to who the other side is or what their objective is. But the assumption of superiority, the implication that the journalist didn't do his job by digging through until he found a name and identity of the case and the assumption that it instantly discredits the case and therefore shouldn't be considered by the media - all of that is not founded in a logical argument and stands after a dozen posts completely unsupported by subsequent arguments.

"You just contradicted your own argument, counselor."

Yeah, I lost control of a debate where my original point was how ticked I was at your smug "You're welcome, David".

"You'd think that understanding the long game favorably augments your approach to the more immediate one. You're implying that knowing less overall is actually more helpful in that it allows you to focus on the singular argument in front of you. If that works for you personally, then go for it."

You're confusing my argument that we should should argue the outcomes with not understanding the long game. What I know and what I argue with are two different things.

"I haven't really touched on the argument itself or its legality. It's weak at best; there's ample historical precedent involving Presidential executive orders that sidestep or modify enforcement of the law. You can research that here."

Er....you just linked this page and there's absolutely nothing usable in the article here.

But the thing is: if there is precedent, that is actually useful. That provides me with actual usable information for formulating my opinion on whether it is a reasonable complaint or not.

"If you're in court, perhaps. They do tend to work well when attempting to sway public opinion."

Depends on how broadly you want to define public opinion. Mind you, the broadest I generally get is convincing a handful of people or winding Paulie into a ball tight enough that he shuts up.

"It is to figure out why the legal argument is being made."

For what purpose? You don't need to find out he believes in Eugenics to think that the reason for the legal proceedings was blatantly obvious so what does it matter? Whether he believes in Eugenics or is merely an American-first doesn't-think-hes-racist-but-really-is idiot, the arguments don't change and the validity of the arguments don't change and convincing people they're wrong is the same process: their arguments are shortsighted, dependent upon things working beyond the capability of reality and often contradictory so prove it.

> I should be on the lookout for when their lawyers start falling
apart and making racist comments because they're starting to lose?

Uh, what?

You'd think that understanding the long game favorably augments your approach to the more immediate one. You're implying that knowing less overall is actually more helpful in that it allows you to focus on the singular argument in front of you. If that works for you personally, then go for it.

> My real concern is the argument they're actually making which I don't have a real argument against.

I haven't really touched on the argument itself or its legality. It's weak at best; there's ample historical precedent involving Presidential executive orders that sidestep or modify enforcement of the law. You can research that here.

> ...when I argue against the objective of the long game, I'm making a slippery slope argument, losing me the immediate argument.

If you're in court, perhaps. They do tend to work well when attempting to sway public opinion.

> ...you argued the long game by attacking the individual who was funding
them and his long term objectives rather than citing actual holes with
their legal argument.

I didn't realize that my objective was to shoot down a legal argument. Probably because that isn't my objective.

"Or, you can go into debates on these issues more openly an honestly, since you have an idea where everyone is coming from. Praemonitus, praemunitus...Forewarned is forearmed."

So... I should be on the lookout for when their lawyers start falling apart and making racist comments because they're starting to lose? I'm not really concerned about that - if they fall into that pattern, I know how to win that argument. My real concern is the argument they're actually making which I don't have a real argument against.

"In chess, if all I'm doing is looking at the most recent move my opponent has made, I'm losing.And I should, because I've failed to anticipate what's going on in the larger game."

I'm not saying I can't see the long game - clearly I can. However, when I argue against the objective of the long game, I'm making a slippery slope argument, losing me the immediate argument. At that point, it doesn't matter whether the immediate outcome is wrong or not - I've lost my ability to fight against it.

And therein lies the problem with your original argument: you argued the long game by attacking the individual who was funding them and his long term objectives rather than citing actual holes with their legal argument. Their legal argument is a legal argument - not a legislative one, not a philosophical one, but a legal one. It also isn't an abnormal type of legal argument - it wasn't some obscure loophole but a fairly standard question of "the law is created by Congress and you're asking us not to enforce it, is this allowed?"

"In a more perfected world where people engage in honest negotiation and are open to being wrong and having to change their positions, sure. We're not there."

You weren't going to convince them either way. I'm more concerned about the 60% in the middle.

Oh, absolutely. It's important to recognize that and use that knowledge to question your own beliefs and reactions.

> Only by attacking the outcome...

In chess, if all I'm doing is looking at the most recent move my opponent has made, I'm losing.And I should, because I've failed to anticipate what's going on in the larger game.

> ...but discussing the original issue and
showing the flaws of logic of the positions, the facts of the sides
given, and giving them access to new information can we actually break
the predefined beliefs.

In a more perfected world where people engage in honest negotiation and are open to being wrong and having to change their positions, sure. We're not there.

Anyways, here's why attacking the outcome (or assumed or logical or whatever outcome) rather than the actor has the advantage: arguments against the outcome can be made that do not require everyone to agree in advance of the goodness or badness of an individual. Humans have insane abilities to invoke Protagonist Centered Morality and forgive the "little sins" of those they tend to agree with while highlighting the "major flaws" of those they oppose (as we see on a regular basis). Invoking names of individuals makes it near impossible to disentangle the issue from the predefined positions on the individuals. You end up with no ability to convince the other side - merely harden the two sides to seek greater enmity. Positions harden and nobody can see beyond their presumed truths while what they believe becomes progressively disassociated with what they profess.

Only by attacking the outcome, but discussing the original issue and showing the flaws of logic of the positions, the facts of the sides given, and giving them access to new information can we actually break the predefined beliefs.

Not that this has anything to do with this situation. In this case, a court case by 10 agents that is about the law is having people line up on both sides to make it about the philosophy behind the law rather than whether the law itself was actually legal - and within the real purview of the court.

What about if the outcome is disputable in how 'good' it is? A decision that's good for one party (court decides that prioritizing enforcement actions is within Executive privilege, resulting in undocumented Americans not getting deported) may not be viewed favorably by others (nativists, people who are more absolutist when it comes to law enforcement.) Not that there is any outcome at this point, anyway, that can be examined. So how do you create your personal value judgement when the only (to you) relevant point is unclear or hasn't happened yet?

> John Boehner got the Hurricane Sandy legislation through - does it make
it a bad outcome just because it was supported by John Boehner?

Boehner wasn't that supportive of the Sandy legislation and practically had to be embarrassed into bringing it to the House floor for a vote; he certainly wasn't the one driving that piece of legislation. I'd argue that the outcome was positive despite the presence - not motivating force - of multiple 'bad' actors. It's not a great analogy, as the situation is different.

Now, if Boehner was a motivating factor behind that Sandy Relief legislation and was in the process of moving it through House committees, that would be more of a proper analogy. And similarly, Boehner's strong involvement would make me question the legislation being discussed.

> So my argument is let's evaluate the outcome on the merits of the outcome.

Of course, by then it's too late to do anything to change the outcome.

I wrote a lot and then figured that really, I should just boil it down to this:

"What I'm attempting to do is show that a bad actor using reasonable means to effect a bad outcome is still pretty bad...and that one cannot always separate the actor from the means by which that actor is trying to effect a particular outcome. "

I think you're missing my point (which is what made it look like a parallel thus fueling my misread). My point is the actor is irrelevant - the outcome is the only point of relevance and the fact that the outcome is bad should be argued because the outcome is bad. To flip that around a bit, a good outcome from a bad actor is still a good outcome - regardless of the actor. John Boehner got the Hurricane Sandy legislation through - does it make it a bad outcome just because it was supported by John Boehner? The outcome, not the actor, is the point that's relevant. So my argument is let's evaluate the outcome on the merits of the outcome. For me, that means answering the question of whether Obama has the power to make that decision - the outcome of that I'm curious about and is quite irrelevant to the outcome of "should Dreamers be welcomed in America" which reasonably could be argued is a decision for the worthless body called Congress.

I'm not jumping on anything; you asked a question which invited an answer.

> I don't think my value judgment should be decided based upon whether the position is supported or funded by a Neo-Nazi or not.

Your value judgments and the process/criteria by which you make them are your own. Same goes for me as well.

> My value judgment should be based upon the actual value of the work in question.

Again, your value judgments and the process/criteria by which you make them are your own. This time, you are talking about the process of determining something called 'actual value,' which I take to mean the worthiness of the work-as-a-standalone-product, correct?

> ...the person should be irrelevant to the position...

If the person pushing legislation to lower the age of sexual consent is a convicted child molester, you would judge that legislation solely on its merits with no consideration of what the motivations of its proponent are?

And here I thought the late Senator was using a historical example to illustrate how bad actors could use the legislative process to legitimize some very nasty outcomes.

> And your parallel is just plain wrong.

I'm not making a parallel between the Holocaust and a lawsuit over immigration enforcement. That's too absurd, even for me, and somewhat of a misread on your part.

What I'm attempting to do is show that a bad actor using reasonable means to effect a bad outcome is still pretty bad...and that one cannot always separate the actor from the means by which that actor is trying to effect a particular outcome.

> This may, reasonably, be a breach of actual separation of powers and
there should be a ruling of some sort on the matter from an independent
body.

Again, you're considering this in a vacuum. If this lawsuit is purely about the limits of executive authority, then where were the lawsuits funded by Numbers USA when similar re-prioritization of enforcement was done with regards to marijuana laws and the DOMA?

Why now, on this issue, from this Numbers USA group?

> How can we criticize any Presidential administration for any abuse of
executive power it commits when the definition we use for right and
wrong is based entirely upon our morality?

Easy. We can criticize when those actions offend our own definition of what is right and wrong. Just like we always have.

How can a nation function
when every side decides what's right and wrong for themselves and
expects that definition to be used regardless of what is law?

a) Well, that's kinda the mode we are in now, aren't we?

b) What is right or wrong and what is legal are not always the same thing, are they?

You're jumping on the wrong issue. My opinion is that he's as close to a Nazi as you can get while still remaining within the realm of the law. My opinion is that it shouldn't matter. I don't think my value judgment should be decided based upon whether the position is supported or funded by a Neo-Nazi or not. My value judgment should be based upon the actual value of the work in question. There's a reason why I refute invokations of Godwin's Law with "Hitler ate Sugar" - because the person should be irrelevant to the position.

Your argument from quoting Senator Byrd is a slippery slope argument. By the same logic, we should never pass any laws or ever follow the actual laws because you never know who the real Nazi is.

And your parallel is just plain wrong. First, in the Nazi Parallel, under both cases the Nazis are passing new laws that are inherently evil. In this case, they're using the established courts system to do exactly what it was designed to do: reign in possible abuses of power.

Here's the facts from my perspective:

- I think the Dream act is a good idea and should be an obvious common sense proposal that anyone should support even if they don't agree on the larger issue of immigration just like giving state-recognized spouses of homosexual soldiers full access to spousal benefits should be a common sense proposal even for people who don't necessarily agree with same-sex marriage. Republicans block it because the symbolism of the move would be too problematic for them to consider

- The Dream Act is a policy change in the law and therefore requires an act of Congress

- Obama defacto passed the Dream Act and it was sold as such.

- This may, reasonably, be a breach of actual separation of powers and there should be a ruling of some sort on the matter from an independent body.

Really, you've created a double standard. How can we criticize any Presidential administration for any abuse of executive power it commits when the definition we use for right and wrong is based entirely upon our morality? How can a nation function when every side decides what's right and wrong for themselves and expects that definition to be used regardless of what is law?